If elected, how will Obama handle the drilling issue?

I think we all know that Obama will most likely win the Presidential election. I'm not voting for him, but I think the majority of Americans will because they want change.

Obama has made it clear that he supports renewable energy and is against drilling to resolve our energy needs. However, according to Zogby, 74% of likely voters favor drilling and 59% favor drilling in ANWR. That's not 74% of Republicans, that's 74% of voters.

I think there are a lot of misguided people out there who believe that Obama being elected is going to have some magical effect in bringing down oil and gas prices and I think they are going to come to a rude awakening when it doesn't happen. But I wonder how he will handle the percentage of those who want to drill versus his own policies?

Source: www.zogby.com...

You're right SOS. I think it is quick to assume though that Obama will become President. His numbers have been dropping and the general election scrutiny is yet to come.

Obama has major lobbyist funding from new energy companies. It is why he is pushing the new energy route.

It will take years and years to find a new quantifiable energy source to replace Oil alltogether. It will also take a rediculous amount of spending for research and testing.

The Gas prices are a world problem. Many Americans think it is only an American problem. It is not. Most of the world are paying rediculous prices due to increased Oil demand across developing countries like China. China's economy is booming bigtime - placing a huge demand on current supply chains.

Obama isn't going to solve it any better than anyone else.

reply to post by jetxnet


The same way congress is not handeling it. A lot of complaints and a friendly ear, yet no answers. He will say whatever he needs to in order to become president and then blame others for nothing happening if he goes for a second term. I still believe in America and with that belief there is no way this guy can get elected.

Originally posted by jetxnet
You're right SOS. I think it is quick to assume though that Obama will become President. His numbers have been dropping and the general election scrutiny is yet to come.

Obama has major lobbyist funding from new energy companies. It is why he is pushing the new energy route.

It will take years and years to find a new quantifiable energy source to replace Oil alltogether. It will also take a rediculous amount of spending for research and testing.

The Gas prices are a world problem. Many Americans think it is only an American problem. It is not. Most of the world are paying rediculous prices due to increased Oil demand across developing countries like China. China's economy is booming bigtime - placing a huge demand on current supply chains.

Obama isn't going to solve it any better than anyone else.

I really do just want the candidate that's going to do what's best for this country. I believe that's McCain, but each day I see people jumping on the Obama bandwagon not even knowing the issues or why they're voting for him. You know there was a woman who called into the Mark Levin show last week who said she was voting for Obama because he was only "half black" and because he was "cute"? I shudder to think people like that are allowed to participate in our country's elections.

No doubt. Many women who don't think much will always vote for the guy they think is better looking or more sexy.

There is alot of silly "White guilt" out there too. It's ok if Obama sits and listens to racial slurs against America and the "White enemy" by good ole Pastor Wright off and on for twenty years.

Not enough people do their own research or think for themselves. They leave to others to do their thinking for them. It is why so many people are impressionable.

Bottom line, Obama is clearly anti-American by his associations and his utter disrespect for what America stands for. He has not business even running for the POTUS.

When are we going to get the word from the State Dept. that Obama has submitted an authentic Certificate of Birth? They have requested one from him several times, and each time he refuses to provide one.

There are so many issues around Obama, his associations, his shady dealings and misleading many Americans.

It's a good thing though that more are finding out about the true Obama each day.

Seeing how Al Gore will be his Vice Prez I think it highly unlikely that he will allow new drilling .

Originally posted by jetxnet
When are we going to get the word from the State Dept. that Obama has submitted an authentic Certificate of Birth? They have requested one from him several times, and each time he refuses to provide one.

The State Department told you this? Or are you making up stories again? j-e-t...? Are you making up stories again?

ON TOPIC, you can read about Obama's plans for Energy and The Environment right there.

He doesn't mention drilling.

That's actually a very good question.

Currently he would seem to be against it. However, I have a feeling that should he become President, he will make his decisions based on current polling. He just strikes me as a politician that doesn't really stand for anything other than what will make him popular.

So, if the polls continue to be overwhelming in favor of drilling, I think he'll back drilling.

I'm against drilling for three major reasons.

The first and most obvious is that it would not bring down gas prices at all. Assume drilling was to start in ANWR or offshore tomorrow - It would take 17 years to reach full production capacity. That it, we wouldn't be getting a significant amount of oil until 2025. Even then, experts estimate ANWR would produce about 900,000 barrels of oil a day at max in 2025. That's not even 1/25th of what America consumes daily right now. John McCain himself has said the effect of offshore drilling would be "psychological" and nothing more.

The second point is that we do not need to encourage further reliance on oil of any kind, foreign or native. Giving contracts to the oil companies that do not even drill all the land they're allowed to right now (google it) will only line the pockets of the CEOs further while having no impact on the average American.

The third is the environmental factor. That's probably the least important for me, but I still do not feel it's worth it to wreck a natural preservation so the oil companies get richer.

17 years??? Where in the heck did you read that? I've seen anywhere from 4-10 years from various sources but I've never seen 17 before.

Regardless, it only makes sense to use our resources. We're having serious economy issues right now and unemployment is rising. A great way to create jobs and get some of that oil money flowing internally rather than overseas would be to drill our resources. Not only ANWR, but the various other sources that are being discovered in the midwest as well.

McCain's own energy plan calls for "independence" by 2025.

www.washingtontimes.com...

ANWR would take about 5 years to produce anything, and 17 years to reach max.

www.msnbc.msn.com...

One estimate says that drilling in ANWR would reduce gas prices by two cents! Sounds pretty great, right?

Oh wait. That's two cents in 2025. I should hope that we're weaned off oil enough 17 years from now that we won't need to pump any ANWR gas...

climateprogress.org...

The State Department told you this? Or are you making up stories again? j-e-t...? Are you making up stories again?

You wish I made up stories.

Why do you think all the contraversy surrounding Obama's CoB is about across "Blogsphere"?

You need to get off Planet Obama.

Damming evidence Obama's CoB is indeed fake:
www.freerepublic.com...


[edit on 2-7-2008 by jetxnet]

reply to post by evanmontegarde


Who was it that said that obtaining a million barrels a day from ANWR would reduce the price of oil two cents, but then came out and said that if Saudi pumped a million barrels a day, it would reduce the price by several dollars? I can't remember the guys name. I think it was a senator or congressman.

EDIT: Now I remember. It was Chuck Hagel.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by jerico65]

I'm against drilling for three major reasons.

reply to post by evanmontegarde

Hi Evan,

You sound very much like a liberal. 1. An increase in supply will not bring down oil prices. (goes against basic economics except in the mind of liberals) 2. The problem is the oil companies and the Execs. 3. The environment is all important and the needs of people should be ignored.

You care a lot about the poor don't you? How do high gas prices affect the poor? They just can't afford to drive to work, to take their kids to the doctor, or drive anywhere like elete liberals can afford to do. But that's ok, it will be good for the environment.

Here's my Should high gas prices cause Congress to open ANWAR? thread.

Another side effect of high oil prices not often mentioned is that high oil causes a flow of wealth to go to the UAE at the rate of 1.5 trillion dollars a year. The total worth of all world assets is about 15 to 20 trillion. How many years will it take for Middle East interests to own more than half (a controling interest) in the world economy?

The final thought is what is the stated goal of the Saudi's in regards to what they consider to be the evil Westerners? Defeat, annialation, instatement of Sharia law worldwide.

The way I see it every barrel of domestic oil we can use saves us buying Arabian oil and contributing to their cause!

Regardless of whether it takes 4 years or 25 years, should we get the ball rolling now so that we can at least get to energy independence SOMETIME? The only reason Americans didn't push for this when Clinton was in office was because gas prices were dirt cheap.

Saying no to drilling because it's a long term solution and not a short term solution sounds like a cheap copout. There are no short term solutions to this problem.

Originally posted by sos37


Obama has made it clear that he supports renewable energy and is against drilling to resolve our energy needs. However, according to Zogby, 74% of likely voters favor drilling and 59% favor drilling in ANWR. That's not 74% of Republicans, that's 74% of voters.

So, anyone who supports Obama and is for drilling, should not support Obama because this is the only issue in the country right now?

I support Obama (shocker)

And im all for drilling.

HOWEVER, im only for drilling because its the only thing i know of that can make my gas prices come down.

Since i dont know everything there is to know on this planet, like you obviously believe you do, then im willing to say "ya know what, maybe he'll be able to do something that i never thought of"

After all, he is going to be the president, and you would think he'd have access to things we never dreamed of.


So, your opinion is that "drilling" is the only answer?
My opinion is drilling is an answer, and one that i support. But if new evidence comes along that supports the notion of something else, then ill certainly give it a shot. I dont cling to the past, i look forward to the future

What will alternate energies be?
I have no idea.

I can guess.

Water powered car

Cars that run on french fry grease

Other cars that dont need gasoline


I mean, i found all of those in less than 1 minute from a google search. And since you're thinking of replying right now, with some ignorant response of "dude, cmon really, we'll be running our cars on grease, get real" :shk:

Will we all be filling up at McDonalds any time soon? No. But the technology is here for us to improve upon. It just takes someone who WANTS to do it.

Do your research next time. You make yourself look silly standing up on that stage telling us all that Obama will be the end of our country, because he's against "drilling for oil"

Speaking of another issue. Could an Obama supporter explain to me why the need for Medicaid and the children's Ship program if his plan is to provide universal health care to all Americans? By the way this is according to his blueprint for change. I don't see the need for other government health care plans if his was supposedly intended for the whole nation.

reply to post by jerico65


That sounds like the people who believe that filling the SPR at 70k barrels daily is a major factor in the price increase, yet also believe that up to 1M barrels daily from ANWR wouldn't have any effect at all towards lowering fuel prices.

Yeah, OK.

I see absolutely no reason NOT to drill in ANWR or anywhere else, for that matter. We're going to need the oil sooner or later, so why not just do it and be prepared when that day comes? That day isn't far off. As for the environmental aspect, yeah, its important, but I've seen the pictures of what the oil companies are doing at Prudhoe Bay. It certainly doesn't look like an environmental disaster to me or anything anywhere close to it. As long as they're required by law to clean up any spills (and I believe they are) I see nothing wrong with it.

[edit on 3-7-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by plumranch

I'm against drilling for three major reasons.

reply to post by evanmontegarde

 

Hi Evan,

You sound very much like a liberal. 1. An increase in supply will not bring down oil prices. (goes against basic economics except in the mind of liberals) 2. The problem is the oil companies and the Execs. 3. The environment is all important and the needs of people should be ignored.

You care a lot about the poor don't you? How do high gas prices affect the poor? They just can't afford to drive to work, to take their kids to the doctor, or drive anywhere like elete liberals can afford to do. But that's ok, it will be good for the environment.

Hi plumranch,

Read what I've posted after.

Drilling in ANWR or offshore will not bring gas prices down. Period. The McCain campaign even admits that. The worldwide energy demand is roughly 87 million barrels daily. The supply is about 85 million. Getting less than a million barrels daily by 2025 (at best estimates, worst estimate about 800,000 by 2027) will NOT help gas prices at all.

Here's the most damning part - while the oil companies are graveling for more land to drill on, they currently have millions of untouched acres full of oil that they are allowed to drill on...but aren't!

money.cnn.com...

Of the 90 million offshore acres the industry has leases to, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, it is estimated that upwards of 70 million are not producing oil, according to both Democrats and oil-industry sources.

Still want to give them more land?

A better question is "Why ARE gas prices so high?"

Several reasons - Peak oil, demand that outmatches supply, war, speculation, etc...

Now we can't control peak oil and America has consistently used about 25% of the world's oil supply for a long time now, but the last two there - war and speculation - are the fault of the current administration.

Look up the work of oil economist Dr Mamdouh Salameh to understand how the Iraq War has translated into high gas prices.

www.alternet.org...

And then look up the Enron loophole to see how lobbying by people like Phil Gramm has pushed energy prices sky high. Where is Phil Gramm now? Oh he's John McCain's chief economic adviser.

Here, it's all laid out for you in a video:

www.youtube.com...

Point being - Do you want the same people who got us into this crisis to keep leading the country for 4 more years?

Response to post by Evanmontguarde:

while the oil companies are graveling for more land to drill on, they currently have millions of untouched acres full of oil that they are allowed to drill on...but aren't!

The liberals and democrats maintain they don't explore and drill the tracts they have because they are greedy and want to hord them or insert your own reason if you like. The real reason is as follows from CNN Money

No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."
With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop.

Instead, they're holding out, hoping the government will open areas closer to shore that would be cheaper to work on.

So they have leases, they will expire in a few years if not developed yet they don't develope them because they are too far out, poor prospects for sizable discoveries and they need better areas closer to existing pipelines and platforms. ANWAR would clearly fill this need as well as off shore California and Florida.

But Obama and other liberals aren't about to open these areas because they will loose favor with the greenie environmental groups and the rich elete liberals providing their funding.

Why not use alternative energy sources to solve our energy needs? Here is an example:
Algore has a huge mansion in Tennessee that cost an incredible amount for heat and other utilities monthly. Several thousand dollars a month. Algore was embarassed about his "energy hog" house (justly so) and spent millions of dollars on it to upgrade it using the latest in alternative and renewable energy sources. So millions were spent, did it solve the problem? No, it still was an "energy hog" house, and his utilities went down marginally. A lot spent, little benifit.

What's the problem then? The technology just isn't here yet to put a dent in our energy use. I've been working with this technology for over 20 years. We have some promising technologies such as geo heat pumps and high output solar pannels but if we started today with every available technician it would take 25 years to make much progress. People would not be willing to pay the price of the installations, and frankly a lot of old houses, schools, businesses and factories are too old and inefficient to even bother with they are so energy inefficient.

The poor can't afford to drive now. The elderly can't pay their fuel bills now. Villages here in Alaska are several months behind in their fuel bills now because of high fuel costs and can't run their generators. What do we do, ignore them because of the high political price to be paid for opening oil leases? The leases are sitting there, find the politicians that will open them!